If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Steelers Could (Should?) Surpass Patriots as NFL's Best Team

Posted Jan 25th 2009 4:00 PM by Ryan Wilson (author feed)

Whatever happens Sunday, the Patriots will undoubtedly be the team to beat come September -- at least according to the predictably sycophantic media who assume that, as long as Bill Belichick is breathing and Tom Brady is walking, New England is winning.

There are still concerns about Brady's reconstructed left knee, but if he's fully operational by training camp, the prognosticating bobbleheads should take great comfort in anointing the Patriots as favorites to win their fourth Super Bowl this decade. It's the same banal "analysis" that fans have been beaten about the head with since New England won its last championship four years ago.

In that time, the Steelers, Colts, and Giants have also earned rings. And if Pittsburgh defeats Arizona seven days from now, it will have two titles since 2005, a span in which New England has been shutout. It's a key footnote often overlooked when talking up the Patriots at the expense of everybody else, but it shouldn't diminish what the Steelers have accomplished -- or that they're arguably the best team in the league's over the last five years.

The Patriots have come close to adding to their championship trophy collection, but have fallen short each time since 2004. And although most agree that the Steelers are one of the NFL's most consistent teams, they're never mentioned in the same breath as the Patriots. Certainly, New England's three Super Bowl victories in four years to start the decade has virtually everything to do with that. But the playing field has, for various reasons, been leveled recently.

From 2000-04, both Pittsburgh and New England averaged 10.6 wins per season; the Steelers never made it out of the conference championship (losing twice), while the Patriots won three titles. In the last four years, however, the Pats have averaged 12.25 wins a season; the Steelers: 10.25.

There are several explanations for the win-total discrepancy since 2005. First, Brady has evolved into one of the best quarterbacks to ever play, and when you put him in an offense with Randy Moss and Wes Welker scoring records are getting broken. More than that, though, Brady has benefited from sound game plans and great offensive coordinators. (Because, really, New England had no business winning 12 games in 2006 with the likes of Jabar Gaffney and Reche Caldwell catching the bulk of Brady's passes.)

To a lesser degree, Ben Roethlisberer helmetlessly head-butting cement can also be attributed to the win-total difference between the two teams. The then-second year quarterback was coming off a remarkable postseason (save the forgettable Super Bowl appearance) and was primed to take more control of the offense. Instead, his face was rearranged and his brains were scrambled on a Pittsburgh street, and he subsequently struggled through an 8-8 campaign.

(Patriots fans could just as easily point to Brady going down in September as evidence that the 2008 club could've been even better than the '07 version. Fair point, especially when you consider that Cassel, who last started a football game in high school, led New England to an 11-5 record.)

There's also this: the Steelers' brutal schedule and Spygate. Frankly, neither makes a compelling case for why New England won more often than Pittsburgh the last four years, chiefly because both teams played similarly tough schedules over that period, and because it's still not clear that the Patriots were doing anything other teams weren't also doing. They just got caught. (Either way, in the spirit of completeness, I've included it here.)

Then there's the great equalizer: luck. Good luck, some might say, got the Patriots to their first Super Bowl this century. Bad luck, in various manifestations, have kept them from hoisting the Lombardi Trophy since 2004. Last September, Brady's injury immediately changed the playoff landscape in the AFC. (Later losing Adalius Thomas and Laurence Maroney didn't help, either.)

Going back, Super Bowl parade preparations were scrapped after a controversial call on a Champ Bailey pick-six in the '05 playoffs. A year later, a rare late-game Brady miscue sealed New England's fate in Indy. Then Super Bowl XLII happened. At some point, great teams lose to good ones. For the Patriots, it's suddenly happening with some frequency.

Regular season win totals are nice, but ultimately, the idea is to stock the trophy case with championships. And if Pittsburgh can win their second title in four years (and their sixth in franchise history), they would be the most successful team in the league over the last half-decade. Even if that fact is obscured by all the Patriots obsequiousness we'll invariably be subjected to in the run up to the 2009 season.

Are the Steelers the greatest franchise?

Purchased by Art Rooney Sr. in 1933, with $2,500 he supposedly won at the track (love that), the Steelers initially struggled for decades. But since the AFL-NFL merger in 1970 (something Art Sr. helped orchestrate), no one's been better. No one. And now, after seven Super Bowls, 30 postseason wins, seven championship games in the past 14 years, 19 Hall of Famers and the dynasty of the 1970s that includes probably the greatest, baddest football team ever assembled … if you factor in the popularity of the NFL and the quaint but sturdy Midwestern soul of this franchise, it's hard to argue against what the Steelers have built.

Yes, of course, I know the Montreal Canadiens have won 24 Stanley Cups. But if we're talking about the best-run, most successful franchise in our lifetime, the Habs are disqualified for winning only two Cups in the past 30 years. There are the defending NBA champs in Boston, of course, who have collected 17 titles, but they too were largely a non-factor for the past two decades. The Cowboys? America's Team? Please. They haven't won a playoff game in a dozen years.

The stats definitely favor the Yankees, I know. In fact, the numbers are nearly impossible to argue: They've got a gazillion titles (26) in 109 years, but nothing since 2000. The Steelers could have six in the past 43, giving them 14 percent of their sport's titles as compared to 24 percent for the Yanks. I could go on with this, but the truth is math gives me a headache. So let me say this: You can't buy titles in football the way you can on the diamond. Therefore extreme parity in the NFL, plus the economic constraints of a hard salary cap, make it (at least) twice as hard to win Lombardi trophies.

"I see the personal sacrifice that people from our team make on a daily basis for this to happen," coach Mike Tomlin said Sunday night. "That is not just the players; the players are special, but the support staff, training, equipment, medical team, etc. It is a lot of sacrifice by a lot of people. I would be remiss if I didn't acknowledge that this is the Steelers' story and not my story."

Indeed, as Tomlin spoke it was impossible not to feel the profound impact of the Rooney Rule. In 2003 Dan Rooney chaired a committee that opened doors and changed the face of our national pastime by requiring teams to interview at least one minority candidate for head-coaching jobs. Rooney, who was elected to the Hall of Fame in 2000 and has had a major impact on labor negotiations and realignment in the NFL, has always said the best part of his Rooney Rule is that, hopefully, the NFL won't need it much longer. (Maybe the NFL can loan it to the NCAA.)

That kind of social responsibility and impact, however, is one reason why during the past five years the Steelers have compiled an average ranking of 12 in ESPN The Magazine's exhaustive and comprehensive evaluation of all 122 sports franchises. The Yanks' rank? No. 33. In a sports world drowning in drama, the Steelers are the picture of continuity: They've had one philosophy (defense wins championships) and three coaches in the past four decades. The Lions, meanwhile, are on their fourth coach in the past four years.

And finally, let's not forget the little fact that the Steelers aren't currently constructing a new stadium that destroys inner-city playgrounds and green space while costing taxpayers a billion bucks.

Edge?

Sorry, Yanks; it's the Terrible Towel.

Realizing that the argument for the Steelers as the best sports franchise would still be a pretty tough sell (I mean, none of their players are, like, dating Madonna, duh), late Sunday inside the Pittsburgh locker room I asked Dan's son, Steelers President Art Rooney II, what the team's secret was.

"Our secret?" he said, almost embarrassed by the question. "We try to put a team on the field every year that can win a championship … "

Then he stopped for a split second.

And I swear, that artful pause somehow perfectly captured the essence of this franchise, a team that has remained grounded in its Steeltown roots while simultaneously soaring over the rest of the sports landscape.

We try to put a team on the field every year that can win a championship.

"And," Rooney said, "we never take a year off."

Last edited by AZ_Steeler; 01-26-2009 at 12:18 PM.
Reason: spaced it out a little to make it readable

Whatever happens Sunday, the Patriots will undoubtedly be the team to beat come September -- at least according to the predictably sycophantic media who assume that, as long as Bill Belichick is breathing and Tom Brady is walking, New England is winning.

There are still concerns about Brady's reconstructed left knee, but if he's fully operational by training camp, the prognosticating bobbleheads should take great comfort in anointing the Patriots as favorites to win their fourth Super Bowl this decade. It's the same banal "analysis" that fans have been beaten about the head with since New England won its last championship four years ago.

In that time, the Steelers, Colts, and Giants have also earned rings. And if Pittsburgh defeats Arizona seven days from now, it will have two titles since 2005, a span in which New England has been shutout. It's a key footnote often overlooked when talking up the Patriots at the expense of everybody else, but it shouldn't diminish what the Steelers have accomplished -- or that they're arguably the best team in the league's over the last five years.

The Patriots have come close to adding to their championship trophy collection, but have fallen short each time since 2004. And although most agree that the Steelers are one of the NFL's most consistent teams, they're never mentioned in the same breath as the Patriots. Certainly, New England's three Super Bowl victories in four years to start the decade has virtually everything to do with that. But the playing field has, for various reasons, been leveled recently.

From 2000-04, both Pittsburgh and New England averaged 10.6 wins per season; the Steelers never made it out of the conference championship (losing twice), while the Patriots won three titles. In the last four years, however, the Pats have averaged 12.25 wins a season; the Steelers: 10.25.

There are several explanations for the win-total discrepancy since 2005. First, Brady has evolved into one of the best quarterbacks to ever play, and when you put him in an offense with Randy Moss and Wes Welker scoring records are getting broken. More than that, though, Brady has benefited from sound game plans and great offensive coordinators. (Because, really, New England had no business winning 12 games in 2006 with the likes of Jabar Gaffney and Reche Caldwell catching the bulk of Brady's passes.)

To a lesser degree, Ben Roethlisberer helmetlessly head-butting cement can also be attributed to the win-total difference between the two teams. The then-second year quarterback was coming off a remarkable postseason (save the forgettable Super Bowl appearance) and was primed to take more control of the offense. Instead, his face was rearranged and his brains were scrambled on a Pittsburgh street, and he subsequently struggled through an 8-8 campaign.

(Patriots fans could just as easily point to Brady going down in September as evidence that the 2008 club could've been even better than the '07 version. Fair point, especially when you consider that Cassel, who last started a football game in high school, led New England to an 11-5 record.)

There's also this: the Steelers' brutal schedule and Spygate. Frankly, neither makes a compelling case for why New England won more often than Pittsburgh the last four years, chiefly because both teams played similarly tough schedules over that period, and because it's still not clear that the Patriots were doing anything other teams weren't also doing. They just got caught. (Either way, in the spirit of completeness, I've included it here.)

Then there's the great equalizer: luck. Good luck, some might say, got the Patriots to their first Super Bowl this century. Bad luck, in various manifestations, have kept them from hoisting the Lombardi Trophy since 2004. Last September, Brady's injury immediately changed the playoff landscape in the AFC. (Later losing Adalius Thomas and Laurence Maroney didn't help, either.)

Going back, Super Bowl parade preparations were scrapped after a controversial call on a Champ Bailey pick-six in the '05 playoffs. A year later, a rare late-game Brady miscue sealed New England's fate in Indy. Then Super Bowl XLII happened. At some point, great teams lose to good ones. For the Patriots, it's suddenly happening with some frequency.

Regular season win totals are nice, but ultimately, the idea is to stock the trophy case with championships. And if Pittsburgh can win their second title in four years (and their sixth in franchise history), they would be the most successful team in the league over the last half-decade. Even if that fact is obscured by all the Patriots obsequiousness we'll invariably be subjected to in the run up to the 2009 season.

I dont know if they will surpass them as the best team of the decade but they will have definitely caught up to them in a lot of ways. Winning 2 Super Bowls in the last 4 years when the Patriots havent won any in that time span will strongly make a pretty good case for the Steelers being right there with the Patriots as the best team of the decade. Should the Steelers win this Sunday and next year and win back to back Super Bowls and make it 3 out of 5 years then I believe they will have surpassed the Pats as the best team of the 2000 era because it will tie Ben with Brady for 3 Super Bowl wins,and the Steelers much like the Pats did in 03 and 04 would have made it back to back Super Bowls wins with the only difference being the Pats would have done it in 3 out of 4 years while the Steelers would have done it 3 out of 5 years with the Pats doing it in one less year.